Anonymous sets sights on an old enemy—the Westboro Baptist Church

Picketing yahoos want to show up at Sandy Hook Elementary; Anon has other ideas.

That link? It leads to a survey entitled, "Interactive Butthurt Report v. 2.0."

Nothing is beneath the Westboro Baptist Church, as evidenced by the group's announcement to picket outside Sandy Hook Elementary School in wake of the recent tragedy. The group's most recent, perhaps most deplorable decision has apparently irked one of its oldest enemies: infamous hacker collective Anonymous.

Anonymous has continued sticking it to the WBC throughout the day, so this may not be the extent of their actions. The tweet above leads to an online survey mocking the WBC and Anonymous released the below video to explain their actions. As they warned the hateful church, "Dear Westboro Baptist Church, #Anonymous never forgets."

Update: Anonymous continued their hacker offensive with a second day of action: claiming to acquire social security numbers, publishing the hotel WBC members were allegedly staying at, and inspiring fellow notable hackers to set their sights on the hate group.

Honestly, I feel that petition is rather pointless. The US government does not have an official list of "hate groups," and all organizations which do publish such lists (such as the Southern Poverty Law Center) already have Westboro Baptist on their lists. So, signing it will have even less effect than normal for online petitions.

I really don't understand how the WBC hasn't already been classed as a hate group. They're one of the few groups in the world that apparently no-one else finds tolerable. Everyone I know from reactionary biblethumpers to idealogous progressives find them odious.

I really don't understand how the WBC hasn't already been classed as a hate group. They're one of the few groups in the world that apparently no-one else finds tolerable. Everyone I know from reactionary biblethumpers to idealogous progressives find them odious.

They represent the bottom of the barrel. I mean, you knew it existed, but no one knew who the bottom of the barrel was... now you do.

To Quote the Wordsmith on barrel bottoms:"Actually, it's like if the bottom of the barrel had it's own barrel, with another bottom altogether, that then dripped on an ocean of diseased rats which then leapt into a rank sewer."

I really don't understand how the WBC hasn't already been classed as a hate group. They're one of the few groups in the world that apparently no-one else finds tolerable. Everyone I know from reactionary biblethumpers to idealogous progressives find them odious.

I think Saddam Hussein invited them to Iraq for lunch or something, so somebody found them tolerable.

Though I'm gay and find their tactics deplorable, let's not forget that they are not illegal and are explicitly protected under our constitution. Just because we manage to bully a group into silence does not mean they will cease to exist and will no longer hold to their beliefs.

Why can't wackos, like the nutjob that killed all those innocent kids, ever go berserk on a group like those from the illustrious Westboro Baptist Church instead of a damn elementary school? Any group that would actively picket funerals or sites of such severe tragedy with such hateful and bigoted rhetoric (some of which even targets the victims families), that feed off of such misery, really deserve all the ills that befall them (enjoy the DOX'ing, bastards).

I am pretty sure that hate crimes are not covered by the Freedom of Speech. There is also harassment which police could charge the group with. Of course, since they mostly go after military funerals, perhaps the charge should be treason.

WBC are just a real life version of trolls. Let's stop feeding them and let them continue to be what they really are, forgettable, unimportant hateful people. You can't stop them from being that, let's not drag our first amendment into the battle.

FFS! Thats low, by any standard, even comparing it to the RIAA/MPAA standard.

What happened at SHE was a tragedy, no matter what you have a gripe with (copyright/environment/gay people/black people/presidents etc) that is no place to make a spectacle, let those poor people mourn in peace, whats happened there should never happen anywhere on this planet.

This really makes me mad, I wish Anon the best of luck in however much "butthurt" they can inflict on these morons.

I disagree, people should have the right to say whatever they want. But I reserve the right to despise them for how they use that right, as in this case.

The right is inalienable, there is no should or shouldn't about it.

The question is how much we're willing to tolerate it given that it really wouldn't be hard to shut them down. Congress can't pass a law against them, but Anonymous is publicizing the members, which is an attempt to intimidate them into silence.

They're wrong to do that. I think history records very clearly that we're far better off as a society tolerating even the most vile political speech than censoring it. We're better off hearing what they have to say and we benefit from the hard insight that real people can and do believe those things.

Every attempt to enforce civility and fairness in politics has been commandeered to suppress legitimate speech. The biggest symptom of this is our two-party system; there have been plenty of third parties with strong followings but the byzantine regulations have prevented any of them from being a serious threat to the dominant parties.

Is this going to prevent WBC from their hateful activities? No. Is this going to slow them down in any way? Probably not. Is what #anon doing a crime? Likely, depending on the methods used to "dox" WBC members.

Also: Using the generally accepted definitions of the terminology, the tag on your article shouldn't be "White hat." A black hat doesn't suddenly become white just because they're doing "black hat" operations against an unpopular target. It's just a black hat operation that we don't necessarily oppose.

I'm glad to see some vigilante justice here. Let's hope that anonymous doesn't commit any crimes or do anything that is civilly actionable (or get caught for the latter). Gotta pay -some-lip service to the holding the moral high ground.

It would also be helpful for any media outlets to not cover them anymore. The other posters are absolutely right in making the point that WBC only is able to continue doing what they do due to the attention they receive. Let anonymous do what they are going to do and let the rest of us pay them no mind. I go between wishing them ill for causing such grief in so many people's lives and just wishing they would go away.

I am pretty sure that hate crimes are not covered by the Freedom of Speech. There is also harassment which police could charge the group with. Of course, since they mostly go after military funerals, perhaps the charge should be treason.

I see a lack of tolerance, but that's not a hate crime. I'm glad you're concerned and I'm sure you mean me and my spouse nothing but good things. There are probably many people out there who would agree with you.

They have a right to believe whatever they want as long as it does not interfere with my life.

I disagree, people should have the right to say whatever they want. But I reserve the right to despise them for how they use that right, as in this case.

They have a right to say it certainly, but the problem is where and when they say it. They should have right to say "God hates fags" all they want, but when they harass grieving families at funerals that goes beyond free speech.

Especially since they do it with the intent of pushing somebody past their limits so they can file lawsuits when they snap. It isn't free speech, it's a money making scam. So yes, let them say it but not at a funeral.

I am pretty sure that hate crimes are not covered by the Freedom of Speech. There is also harassment which police could charge the group with. Of course, since they mostly go after military funerals, perhaps the charge should be treason.

Treason is a VERY specific charge in the US and has a very high requirement for proof, because the founding fathers saw how badly it had been abused elsewhere.

I am pretty sure that hate crimes are not covered by the Freedom of Speech. There is also harassment which police could charge the group with. Of course, since they mostly go after military funerals, perhaps the charge should be treason.

The problem is, who gets to decide what is and isn't a hate crime? So yes, "hate crimes" (which is just a term somebody made up for saying really really nasty things) are covered in the constitution, just like "love crimes" and "bacon-allergy crimes" (although that one's questionable).

Unfortunately, the only way to solve these types of societal problems is education, and sometimes it takes many generations to make any progress. The WBC is a symptom of much deeper social ills than just their small group reveals.

I am pretty sure that hate crimes are not covered by the Freedom of Speech. There is also harassment which police could charge the group with. Of course, since they mostly go after military funerals, perhaps the charge should be treason.

But they're getting the necessary permits, abiding by all the regulations, and thus not committing any crimes. Hating a person is not a crime, and it shouldn't be one because the state has no business telling you how you should feel about your fellow human beings. After all, you should be allowed to hate WBC.

The larger problem with hate crimes is that they have contributed to our broken notion of mens rea. Normally, the "guilty mind" is a precondition of being guilty at all. The idea that it's a separate crime in itself just adds more ways a prosecutor can put you in jail. (The other contributor is strict liability crimes, where you don't even have to be aware you're committing a crime.)

As to treason, partly due to King Henry's abuse of vague charges of treason, it was spelled out: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Naturally, Congress violated that clause almost right away with the Alien Sedition acts.

Ugh, they're protected by the 1st amendment and I wouldn't want the government taking action against them. That said, if the family friends happen to be a large burly guy and his biker buddies, an ass kicking is ok with me. Saying the things they say to strangers in grief... well, it's not the governments job to protect you from your own stupidity. If the WBC was causing extra grief to my mother or etc with their picketing, you can be sure I'd be willing to spend the night in jail after a little assault.

If I walked up to a stranger and started talking shit, I can't tell them not to hit me, "I'm protected under the 1st amendment!" I mean, you have to have some sense.

IMO, Anon and WBC are dumb equally, but in different ways. If too many groups get in on this, we might create a stupidity singularity.

I disagree, people should have the right to say whatever they want. But I reserve the right to despise them for how they use that right, as in this case.

They have a right to say it certainly, but the problem is where and when they say it. They should have right to say "God hates fags" all they want, but when they harass grieving families at funerals that goes beyond free speech.

Especially since they do it with the intent of pushing somebody past their limits so they can file lawsuits when they snap. It isn't free speech, it's a money making scam. So yes, let them say it but not at a funeral.

Yeah, that's a knotty question... to make the dilemma clear: broadcasting my lecture is clearly free speech. Running an EM jammer to disrupt all communications seems to me not free speech.

At what volume does it become not free speech?

The law, usually, seems to answer by looking at case law and devising some reasonable tests to distinguish one side or the other. It's going to be arbitrary, but generally it's a practical solution.

And they've done that, obviously, with harassment laws and such. WBC illustrates the advantage that well organized and shameless groups have. They've found that legal boundary and are happy to walk right up against it every day, while counter-protestors tend to have a sense of decency and aren't doing this every day of their lives.

I disagree, people should have the right to say whatever they want. But I reserve the right to despise them for how they use that right, as in this case.

The right is inalienable, there is no should or shouldn't about it.

The question is how much we're willing to tolerate it given that it really wouldn't be hard to shut them down. Congress can't pass a law against them, but Anonymous is publicizing the members, which is an attempt to intimidate them into silence.

They're wrong to do that. I think history records very clearly that we're far better off as a society tolerating even the most vile political speech than censoring it. We're better off hearing what they have to say and we benefit from the hard insight that real people can and do believe those things.

Every attempt to enforce civility and fairness in politics has been commandeered to suppress legitimate speech. The biggest symptom of this is our two-party system; there have been plenty of third parties with strong followings but the byzantine regulations have prevented any of them from being a serious threat to the dominant parties.

I don't think history is against those who bully the bullies. It is a shame that anonymous is likely going to commit crimes to carry out their plans for justice because that undermines their role as executor of good.

I hold very very tightly to the notion that violence extends beyond physical confrontation. For me, the suspension of respect for someone's integrity as a human being is the foundation for violence. Treating someone as inferior or unworthy of respect is (the way the wbc does with their hurtful and otherwise useless protests) is violence in my eyes. We're not talking about minority viewpoints that should be protected, we're taking about people whose only intent is to make themselves feel good by cutting people to their core right after a tragic loss. Retaliation to protect oneself or another from violators of the human psyche is a bitch, but sometimes it's necessary.

What anonymous or anyone else who wants to stop the westboro baptist church should do, is instead petition the media and new organization from stop using their name, stop interviewing and in general stop giving these morons what they want.

In general people need to stop falling for this crap and stop treating these nonsense as serious and recognize it as the trolling that it is.

I remember the Louis Theroux episode on Westboro. It was absolutely heartbreaking.

They take their five year old kid along on pickets. On the particular picketing Theroux was filming, someone threw a bottle out of a car and it hit the kid. When he was asked why they were picketing, he said he didn't know. Jeez.

There's this lovely teenager, just off to collage, sweet as a button - except she's been brought up with this cult, and she honestly believes all that stuff. It's really very terrifying.

To the person who wished death on them, shame on you. They may be hateful and bigoted, but I don't think they deserve to be executed for it.

OfficialJab wrote:

Funerals shouldn't be protected from picketing by law?

They are - you're not allowed to protest within 300 feet of a funeral. Generally they picket across the street from the graveyard, if the one they took Theroux to is anything to go by.

While the First Amendment protects the WBC's right to say repulsive things like, "God wanted these kindergarteners to die because of gay marriage!", it shouldn't protect their right to say it anywhere near these funerals. There are limits to how close anti-abortion protesters can get to abortion clinics. I would place even greater limits on where the WBC can hold it's protests -- say, 10 miles from the funerals at a minimum.

At least on a private forum, Ars for instance, you can get kicked out for trolling. WBC rides the line as someone said.

I think giving speech the attribute of "violence" would set a dangerous precednent imo. If the WBC is the price we have to pay for free speech, such as it is in a nation that has "free speech zones," then I guess it could be worse.

I think the personal nature by which the WBC takes it to people not related to their cause makes it harassment. I would be hesitant to make speech you don't agree with harassment, but I think the line can be drawn at berieved widows/parents mourning the loss of the loved ones, right? It's one thing to show up near a gay rights or other political rally with their crap, but a funeral? I mean the god they think they serve must be the biggest asshole ever.

In addition to the DOXing, Anonymous has repeatedly promoted a whitehouse.org petition to have the WBC recognized legally as a hate-group. The petition was created on Friday and it has already doubled the required 25,000 signatures.

Man, these people hate America a lot, don't they?

Firstly, there is no such thing as a legally recognized hate group in the US. Indeed, such a designation would be unconstitutional, a violation of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

Seriously, the only legal restrictions on freedom of speech needs to be:

1) Safety - yelling fire in a crowded theater.2) Threats.3) Going back to 1, but notable as a seperate category, speech that directly harms other people or exposes them to danger - such as a government employee revealing the names of undercover agents, or revealing where and when and with what security we are moving chemical/biological/nuclear items.

I am pretty sure that hate crimes are not covered by the Freedom of Speech. There is also harassment which police could charge the group with. Of course, since they mostly go after military funerals, perhaps the charge should be treason.

There is no such thing as hate speech. Or rather, there is no such thing as hate speech in the US; all speech that is not listed above is legal.

And hate crimes in general are a moronic classification created by idiots. It doesn't matter if you kill someone because they're black or because they stole your girlfriend, you still killed them. The same crime. Calling one a hate crime is moronic.

Quote:

Every attempt to enforce civility and fairness in politics has been commandeered to suppress legitimate speech. The biggest symptom of this is our two-party system; there have been plenty of third parties with strong followings but the byzantine regulations have prevented any of them from being a serious threat to the dominant parties.

Not really, no. The reason third parties fail is because the main parties encompass too much of the political spectrum to compete with them easily. The Libertarians are pretty much the only group that could potentially split off, as they have no representation whatsoever presently, but they only make up a very small percentage of the population, and thus would have little voice - which is probably an improvement over the present, where they have no voice and are merely paid lip service, but it would be extremely bad for the Republicans if they split off.

Two party systems are the most stable systems for this very reason - if you are further towards the right or the left than the main part of both parties, it advantages you very little to split off on your own because you act as a spoiler and put in worse people than if you did not compete at all. Thusly, the only place for a third party to emerge is either outside of their spheres - as with the libertarians - or in between them, pushing the two parties outwards, as if you're in the middle you have less to lose by being a spoiler, and you have more ability to draw enough support to actually win.

Quote:

They have a right to say it certainly, but the problem is where and when they say it. They should have right to say "God hates fags" all they want, but when they harass grieving families at funerals that goes beyond free speech.

Not really, no. They have every right to do that. Indeed, confronting people in any sort of public area is perfectly legitimate, and they are hoping, by telling them at this moment, that they will sway them to their side.

It is analogous to people going to wall street after the whole financial crisis to complain at the bankers.

Its fine to picket funerals. If people were picketing the funerals to protest gun violence, a lot of you would probably be a lot more sympathetic.

Quote:

Especially since they do it with the intent of pushing somebody past their limits so they can file lawsuits when they snap. It isn't free speech, it's a money making scam. So yes, let them say it but not at a funeral.

I don't think history is against those who bully the bullies. It is a shame that anonymous is likely going to commit crimes to carry out their plans for justice because that undermines their role as executor of good.

Anonymous is chaotic neutral, with varying tendencies towards good (fighting the church of scientology, some of their vigilante activities towards pedophiles) and evil (various things they've done for no purpose other than to amuse themselves, regardless of hurting others).

Quote:

Normal US Citizens have their rights curb stomped on a daily basis. I wouldn't mind laws being bent or completely broken to destroy this pathetic group in a holy shitstorm. Who's for a lynching?

Er, not only is it illegal to murder other people for speaking their minds, but it is actually illegal to encourage other people to murder them.

Quote:

They are - you're not allowed to protest within 300 feet of a funeral. Generally they picket across the street from the graveyard, if the one they took Theroux to is anything to go by.

You aren't allowed to protest within 300 feet of a MILITARY graveyard within an hour of a funeral there. However, the law is blatantly unconstitutional, and the moment it is challenged it will be overturned - indeed, a similar law was overturned in 2007.

Quote:

While the First Amendment protects the WBC's right to say repulsive things like, "God wanted these kindergarteners to die because of gay marriage!", it shouldn't protect their right to say it anywhere near these funerals. There are limits to how close anti-abortion protesters can get to abortion clinics. I would place even greater limits on where the WBC can hold it's protests -- say, 10 miles from the funerals at a minimum.

Uh, no.

You can be anywhere on public property around an abortion clinic that you want, so long as you do not obstruct access to the abortion clinic and do not attempt to intimidate or interfere with those going inside.

People really need to stop hating freedom so much. You hate freedom if you say things like that, its the truth. The real test in your love for freedom is supporting the rights of those who do things that you abhor.

Quote:

If I'm forced to choose between the rights of the families and community to grieve in peace and the rights of WBC, I'm going to go with the families every time.

Seriously, the only legal restrictions on freedom of speech needs to be:

1) Safety - yelling fire in a crowded theater.2) Threats.3) Going back to 1, but notable as a seperate category, speech that directly harms other people or exposes them to danger - such as a government employee revealing the names of undercover agents, or revealing where and when and with what security we are moving chemical/biological/nuclear items.

Even those don't have to be limits on free speech, the resulting effects of doing something like that can be the offense. Defining a threat is a bit harder, but i suppose there are two main categories, blackmail/extortion and then invariably, revealing to someone that the person making a threat is going to do something illegal to them, ie hurt them, and similarly with the safety, if i understood it correctly you mean a person misleading others into a panic, which could affect other peoples safety; so you don't need to encroach on 1st amendment rights at all with dealing with those issues.

Do be aware that Phelps Chartered is an actual law firm (Fred Sr got disbarred ages ago, but the KS bar has so far not brought action against of of his kids), and that the way they make all of their money -- and thus the WBC cult's sole real source of income -- is by suing the bejeezus out of anyone who threatens, harasses or assaults them.

So if you're going to send several hundred pages of hardcore gay porn to Fred Sr's fax number, do be sure to do it from the office of someone you really dislike.